March 18, 2003.
Scientific American has the latest on research into the
mind-enhancing drug known as ginkgo biloba: "A review of the experimental
evidence both for and against its usefulness in enhancing brain functions
suggests that the popular herbal supplement may slightly improve your
memory, but you can get the same effect by eating a candy bar."

March 13, 2003. Elizabeth
Smart, missing for nine months, has been
found
alive and apparently well, no thanks to the
600 or so
'psychics' who called in with tips from
their dreams and hallucinations. Many of the helpful psychics told the
Smarts where they could find their daughter's dead body. Well, they had a
50-50 chance of being right about the 15-year-old being dead.
PSI Tech, a Seattle-based company of
remote viewers, claimed that more than a
dozen of its members had determined the location of Elizabeth's body in
a crypt
that holds the skeletal remains of ancient American Indians. With
hundreds of psychics making all kinds of claims, some of the psychics are
bound to
be right about some of the things they claim. I'm sure it will only be
a matter of time before Sylvia Browne and others like her will
shoehorn things
they've said to make it appear that they predicted the whole outcome and
deserve credit for Elizabeth Smart being returned safely to her parents.

The venue of the Congress is Franklin Wilkins Building, Kings College
London, 150 Stamford Street on the south bank of the River Thames and is
within walking distance of many famous attractions, including the Houses
of Parliament, the London Eye, the Globe Theatre, the Festival Hall and
the New Tate Gallery. Early registration is strongly recommended,
particularly if you are booking accommodation as this will soon become
full.

February 12, 2003If you are
at all interested in the latest in cosmology, you must read today's NY
Times
article by Dennis Overbye. "The most detailed and precise map yet
produced of the universe just after its birth confirms the Big Bang theory
in triumphant detail and opens new chapters in the early history of the
cosmos, astronomers said yesterday." That's how the article begins and it
just gets better and better. As Ed Sullivan might have said: "This is
REALLY BIG news!"

February 6, 2003. James Randi
has announced that
his1995 book, An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the
Occult and Supernatural is now up on the
Internet, in its entirety!

February 4, 2003. Michael L.
Dini, an associate professor of biology at Texas Tech University, is being
investigated by the Justice Department after a complaint of religious
discrimination from the Liberty Legal Institute, a group of Christian
lawyers (NY
Times). Micah Spradling, a 22-year-old Texas Tech student, says he was
discriminated against because of his religious beliefs when Dr. Dini would
not write him or any other student a letter of recommendation for medical
school or graduate study in biology unless he gives up his
anti-evolutionist views. Dini has posted on his Web site the following
notice:

If you set up an appointment to discuss the writing of a
letter of recommendation, I will ask you: "How do you think the human
species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a
scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my
recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical
sciences.

Micah claims he can't truthfully and forthrightly affirm a
scientific answer to the question because "that would be denying my faith
as a Christian." Never mind that Dini is also a Christian and obviously
does not think one must deny one's Christian faith in order to accept
evolution. Dini gives several reasons for the requirement that Micah feels
discriminates against his religious beliefs.

Let’s consider the situation of one wishing to enter medical school.
Whereas medicine is historically rooted first in the practice of magic
and later in religion, modern medicine is an endeavor that springs from
the sciences, biology first among these. The central, unifying principle
of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and
macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. How can someone who
does not accept the most important theory in biology expect to properly
practice in a field that is so heavily based on biology? It is hard to
imagine how this can be so, but it is easy to imagine how physicians who
ignore or neglect the Darwinian aspects of medicine or the evolutionary
origin of humans can make bad clinical decisions. The current crisis in
antibiotic resistance is the result of such decisions. For others,
please read the
citations
below.

Good medicine, like good biology, is based on the collection and
evaluation of physical evidence. So much physical evidence supports the
evolution of humans from non-human ancestors that one can validly refer
to the "fact" of human evolution, even if all of the details are not yet
known. One can deny this evidence only at the risk of calling into
question one’s understanding of science and of the method of science.
Such an individual has committed malpractice regarding the method of
science, for good scientists would never throw out data that do not
conform to their expectations or beliefs. This is the situation of those
who deny the evolution of humans; such a one is throwing out information
because it seems to contradict his/her cherished beliefs. Can a
physician ignore data that s/he does not like and remain a physician for
long? No. If modern medicine is based on the method of science, then how
can someone who denies the theory of evolution -- the very pinnacle of
modern biological science -- ask to be recommended into a scientific
profession by a professional scientist?

The fact that Dini's argument is eminently rational may
not have any bearing on the issue of religious discrimination, which seems
to have no merit on its face. I doubt whether he could make accepting
evolution a prerequisite for taking his biology courses, any more than
I could require accepting Kant as your personal savior as a prerequisite
for taking a philosophy course. But writing letters of recommendation is a
personal matter. Professors are not required to write them and, as far as
I know, colleges and universities leave such matters entirely up to the
professors. I doubt that it would be legal and know that it would be immoral
to assert that you will not write any letters of recommendations for Jews
or Muslims. But to say you will not write a letter to support someone's
application for further study in an area based on biology unless that
person accepts the central, unifying principle of that field, seems like
common sense. The fact that Micah can't accept evolution because he
believes it conflicts with the requirements of his Christian belief can't
be used as a standard for religious discrimination. If a person's
subjective beliefs and feelings become the standard for discrimination,
rather than objective evidence of invidious and unlawful behavior, then
none of us in education would ever be safe from the charge of religious
discrimination. Any time we made a requirement of a student who felt or
believed the requirement would require them to deny their faith, we would
be subject to charges of religious discrimination. Also, it would seem
that if just one other Christian student is able to accept the professor's
requirement, the charge of discrimination against one's Christian faith
will be refuted. It is not Christianity that requires that one oppose
evolution. It is your own personal belief and it is a personal belief that
could end up causing great harm.

To call Dini's requirement “open religious bigotry,” as
did Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute (LLI), is
pure rhetorical bombast. He says: “Students are being denied
recommendations ... solely because of their personal religious beliefs.”
Not true. Beliefs about the origin of species are not religious
beliefs. They don't become religious beliefs, any more than belief
in how old the oldest rocks on earth are, simply because a person or group
declares them to be religious beliefs. What next? Somebody complaining
that a math professor is discriminating against them because she requires
her students to believe in "0" when his religion explicitly forbids the
faithful to utter 'zero' or believe in "0"?

A reader who uses the handle "Reverend Mykeru" replies:

What frightens me is how someone in biology who doesn't
accept evolution can have *pragmatic consequences*. Remember "Baby Fae",
the infant that was implanted with a baboon's heart?

From [source] "Finally,
a (true) horror story. A few years ago there was a little girl, known to
the concerned public as "Baby Fae," who needed a heart transplant. Human
donors are hard to find, especially for infants, so a daring surgeon
convinced the parents to let him implant a baboon's heart. A hopeful world
held its breath, while skeptical biologists scratched their heads (a
baboon's heart?), but everyone hoped for the best. Sadly, Baby Fae died
after a few weeks. Among the contributing factors may have been that her
immune system had recognized the heart as something foreign, and attacked
it. After the sensational news stories had died down, it was reported that
a biologist asked the surgeon why he had chosen a baboon donor, which is a
much more distant relative of ours (in evolutionary terms) than a
chimpanzee, which is our closest relative (DNA ~99% identical). Wouldn't
there have been less danger of rejection with a heart from a closer
relative? The surgeon's answer: he hadn't even taken that into
consideration, because he didn't believe in evolution! To him, no
creatures were related to each other, since they had all been created at
once, in their present forms.*

Maybe a chimpanzee's heart wouldn't have saved Baby Fae
either, but the chances might have been better. It's hard to find words to
describe a doctor who would do this kind of experiment on a child, then
later reveal that his decisions were based on a complete denial of the
best modern science. I hope you are never faced with a life-or-death
decision between what science says the world is like, and what you think
it is like. But scientific progress is unstoppable, and all modern life
science centers around the knowledge of the evolutionary genesis and
relationships of living things. And there's no sign of that changing
anytime soon." In cases like that perhaps religious discrimination, if
that is what it is, is a good thing, as opposed to being religiously
indiscriminate.

Someone named William Sappo wrote:

I enjoyed reading you're 2/4/03 entry "funk." And I wanted
to respond to your statement that evolution is "the central, unifying
principle of that field"(biology). The scientific magazine Discover
put the situation this way: "Evolution . . . is not only under attack by
fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable
scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record,
there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."

Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book
The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the
scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism,
after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble A
London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this
about it: "It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only
trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full
of colossal holes." Regarding Darwin's Origin of Species, he
observed: "We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become
famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the
kind."?Italics added.

Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning
the theory of evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and
against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar
bombs from either side." He said that it is an academic dispute of
far-reaching proportions, "potentially one of those times in science when,
quite suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary
evidence and a new one takes its place."6 And Britain's New Scientist
observed that "an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a
growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary
theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics
have the highest intellectual credentials." The Neck of the Giraffe,
p. 65.

A quick search of TalkOrigins brought up the following
about Mr. Hitching:

Research on Hitching turned up
the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and
has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he
claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an
inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the
"Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist
Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry
Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching
also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon
inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If
you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His
book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most
ignorant I have read for years."*

A physics professor wrote:

It might be even better for Prof.
Dini to write a letter, on behalf of students who don't believe in
evolution, that includes the following statement: "This student doesn't
believe in evolution. I question whether he can grasp modern science."
This true statement will warn the med scool. About 75% of applicants to
medical school are rejected, including any applicant with a "drop dead"
letter of recommendation.

January 27, 2003. Penn and
Teller's 13-part series on Showtime called
Bullsh!t! started airing
last Friday. The vulgar title and language used throughout the program is
described by Penn as a legal ploy. They can't be sued if they use vulgar
or obscene words to describe what people like
John Edward and James Van Praagh do.
If they call them liars and quacks or purveyors of scams, they can be sued.

Anyway, the first episode dealt exclusively with people
like Rosemary Althea,
Edward, and Van Praagh and their critics who claim that what they are
doing is using cold reading techniques to
take advantage of grieving people. The critics included Joe Nickell of
CSICOP and Jim Underdown of the Center for Inquiry West, and
magician/mentalist Mark Edward of Skeptic magazine who has
infiltrated dead-can-talk performances and has put on some of his own.
Mark Edward, unlike John Edward who is no relation, reveals to his
audience that he has no special powers, only the tools of cold reading and
surreptitious information gathering before shows begin or during breaks (a
tactic known as hot reading).

What are these tools? Here are a few, as explained by Ian
Rowland in his book The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading:

The rainbow ruse: "a statement which credits the client with
both a personality trait and its opposite" (my example: "You can give
the impression of being very stoical, the strong, silent type, but there
are occasions when you appear vulnerable and others might perceive you
as being emotional.") Such statements sound perceptive, but are actually
very safe, as long as you don't say anything quantifiable and is couched
"in terms of potential and capacity, rather than actuality and fact."

The Russian Doll: "a statement which can have several possible
layers of meaning" (my example: "I'm getting a G sound from over here,
maybe a George. Who is George?" Rarely, will there be nobody in the
audience who can't find some connection with somebody named George.) (my
example: I'm getting messages from a spirit named “Bernadette.” [no
response from the audience] Anyone know who this might be? [no response]
She is the kind of woman who was always first to volunteer when help was
needed? [no response] She loved children. [no response] She's someone's
mother. [no response] Does anyone recognize anyone's mother who was like
Bernadette? [Finally, someone in the audience recognizes an aunt who
loved children and was always volunteering. The medium then reveals that
Bernadette is passing on messages from the aunt.]

Barnum statements: "artfully generalized character statements
which a majority of people, if asked, will consider to be a reasonably
accurate description of themselves." (examples: "You have a strong need
for people to like and respect you." "Sometimes you feel as if you are
not appreciated or given the credit that you deserve." "You're an
independent thinker and don't just gullibly accept what people tell
you." "You tend to be unrealistic at times." "You tend to be overly
critical of others at times.")

The next program in the series will be on alternative
medicine. Click here for
a schedule of the first six episodes. If you missed the first episode, it
will repeat on Feb. 6 at 10:30 on Showtime. Or, if you can't wait, you can
view in on the Infidel Guy's
page. You have to
register first (you can leave blank the boxes that ask for numbers).
Then go to
this site. That will take you to the link for the Penn & Teller
program.

January 25, 2003.Paranoid conspiracy theorists (PCTs) have
been thrown a bone by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Some PCTs
have been claiming that the government has been lying to us about American
Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that was hijacked and flown into the
Pentagon on 9/11. The engineers have
issued a report explaining why there wasn't more damage done to the
60-year-old building and the people inside.

January 22, 2003.Just
days after
Nature published an article showing that baby partridges flap
their tiny wings to help them climb steep slopes and that chickens might
just be models of what the first wings were all about, New
Scientist has published a story about six fossils discovered in
China that show a small dinosaur that had flight feathers covering its
legs, as well as its tail and arms, forming an extra pair of wings.

Experts have traditionally been split between two mutually
exclusive theories. Flight either began with small, fleet predatory
dinosaurs leaping from the ground into the air, or with other animals that
learnt to fly whilst jumping to earth from trees. But the new studies
reveal a far more complex picture.